Comparative constitutional law
- Course Code:
- 15PLAC152
- Unit value:
- 1
- Taught in:
- Full Year
This course introduces students to the rich diversity of constitutional law in the world today, aiming at a better understanding of the working of constitutions and of the work constitutions do in different political, socio-economic settings and historical periods. What constitutions are, what makes constitutions different, how constitutional ideas migrate, as well as the larger global processes which structure constitutional law in each country are some of the themes of this course.
As a starting point, students will study the conceptual and theoretical foundations of constitutional law from a comparative perspective. By explicating the basic elements of constitutional theory across time and space, term one seeks to expose the distinctive methods and tasks of comparative constitutional law. In the process, the course will explore and compare:
- Constituent Power,
- Sovereignty,
- Representation,
- Rule of Law,
- Emergency,
- Federalism,
- Rights and Rights Revolutions,
- the Politics of Recognition,
- Constitutional Discourses
- Adjudication.
Term two deals with specific thematic issues and locates the theoretical debates of the first term in their practical setting. The second part of the course is thus concerned with the ways in which ‘similar’ topics of constitutional law are understood, negotiated, and produced differently by different actors in and around different constitutional systems. It will also consider the social and political functions performed by constitutional law, and how groups and individuals operate within and against constitutionalism. The second part of the course thus adopts a micro-perspective, testing the structures of comparative constitutional law in the context of constitutional particularities:
- Public vs. Private,
- Public Choice and Constitutional Economics,
- Right to Property,
- Soviet and Post-Socialist Constitutionalism,
- Post-Colonial Constitutionalism,
- Secularism and Constitutional Faith,
- Due Process,
- Equality and Affirmative Action,
- Abortion,
- Same-Sex Marriage,
- Juristocracy,
- European Union Constitution,
- Cosmopolitan Policy: World Constitutionalism
- Capital Punishment and Euthanasia
- Animal Rights
Objectives and learning outcomes of the course
The aims of this course are:
- to introduce students to the methods and purposes of comparative public law;
- to provide knowledge of the nature of constitutions of a variety of countries and the ways in which, through the medium of law, the powers of government are allocated differently amongst the various institutions of different states;
- to explain how, through the agency of judges, governmental decision-making is rendered subject to law, and how constitutional judicial review varies across time and space;
- to inculcate analytical and research skills;
- to encourage reflection on the role of constitutional law in regulating the exercise of public power in contemporary society.
At the end of this course, students will be able to:
- Distinguish between competing perspectives on constitutional law;
- Examine contemporary constitutional law problems in diverse historical, political, sociological contexts;
- Critically compare different constitutional designs and understand how the working of specific constitutional provisions is embedded within larger socio-legal frameworks and influenced by numerous agencies (e.g. political parties and elections, patterns of resource distribution, culture and history, or simple institutional self-interest);
- Illustrate this understanding through the use of specific case studies, empirical evidence and by conducting independent research with particular emphasis on constitutional theory and comparative approaches to constitutional law.
Method of assessment
Assessment Weighting: 50% unseen written examination and two 4000 word essays worth 25% eachSuggested reading
- Ackerman, Bruce. 1997. The Rise of World Constitutionalism. New Haven.
- Austin, Granville. 1999. Working a Democratic Constitution: The Indian Experience. Oxford.
- Baxi, Upendra. 2000. “Constitutionalism as a Site of State Formative Practices”, Cardozo Law Review (21), 1183.
- Castellino, Joshua and Elvira Dominguez. 2006. Minority Rights in Asia: A Comparative Legal Analysis. Oxford.
- Bork, Robert H. 2003. Coercing Virtue: The Worldwide Rule of Judges. Washington.
- Brennan, Geoffrey, and James M. Buchanan. 1985. The Reason of Rules Constitutional Political Economy. Cambridge.
- Choudhry, Sujit. 2006. The Migration of Constitutional Ideas. Cambridge.
- Davis, D. M. 2003. “Constitutional Borrowing: The Influence of Legal Culture and Local History in the Reconstitution of Comparative Influence: The South African Experience”, International Journal of Constitutional Law (1:2), 181.
- Elazar, Daniel. 1987. Exploring Federalism. Tuscaloosa.
- Elster, Jon, and Rune Slagstad. 1988. Constitutionalism and Democracy. Cambridge.
- Epp, Charles R. 1998. The Rights Revolution: Lawyers, Activists, and Supreme Courts in Comparative Perspective. Chicago.
- Epstein, Lee, Jack Knight, and Olga Shvetsova. 2001. “The Role of Constitutional Courts in the Establishment and Maintenance of Democratic Systems of Government”, Law & Society Review (35:1), 117.
- Ferejohn, John, and Pasquale Pasquino. 2004. “The Law of the Exception: A Typology of Emergency Powers”, International Journal of Constitutional Law (2:2), 210.
- Goldsworthy, Jeffrey Denys. 2006. Interpreting Constitutions a Comparative Study. New York.
- Habermas, Juergen. 2001. “Constitutional Democracy: A Paradoxical Union of Contradictory Principles?”, Political Theory (29:6), 766.
- Harding, Andrew J. (2004). “The ‘Westminster Model’ Constitution Overseas: Transplantation, Adaptation and Development in Commonwealth States, Oxford University Commonwealth Law Journal, 143-166.
- Harding, Andrew, and Peter Leyland. 2007. “Comparative Law in Constitutional Contexts”, in E. Oeruecue and David Nelken (eds). Comparative Law: A Handbook. Oxford, 313.
- Hirschl, Ran. 2004. Towards Juristocracy: The Origins and Consequences of the New Constitutionalism. Cambridge, Mass.
- Hirschl, Ran. 2005. “The Question of Case Selection in Comparative Constitutional Law”, American Journal of Comparative Law (53:1), 125.
- Hood, Roger G. 2002. The Death Penalty: A Worldwide Perspective. Oxford.
- Jackson, Vicki C., and Mark V. Tushnet. 2002. Defining the Field of Comparative Constitutional Law. Westport, Conn.
- Jacob, Herbert. 1996. Courts, Law, and Politics in Comparative Perspective. New Haven.
- Jacobsohn, Gary J. 2003. The Wheel of Law: India's Secularism in Comparative Constitutional Context. Princeton, N.J.
- Kenney, Sally Jane, William M. Reisinger, and John C. Reitz. 1999. Constitutional Dialogues in Comparative Perspective. New York.
- Kibwana, Kivutha; C.M. Peter and J. Oloka-Onyango, eds. (1996). In Search of Freedom and Prosperity: Constitutional Reform in East Africa. Nairobi.
- Klug, Heinz. 2000. Constituting Democracy: Law, Globalism, and South Africa's Political Reconstruction. Cambridge.
- Kymlicka, Will. 1995. Multicultural Citizenship. Oxford.
- Levinson, Sanford. 2006. “Preserving Constitutional Norms in Times of Permanent Emergencies”, Constellations (13:1), 59.
- Loughlin, Martin. 2003. The Idea of Public Law. Oxford.
- Nwabueze, Ben (2003). Constitutional Democracy in Africa: Volumes 1-5. Ibadan.
- Pasquino, Pasquale. 1998. “Constitutional Adjudication and Democracy: Comparative Perspectives: USA, France, Italy”, Ratio Juris (11:1), 38.
- Prempeh, H. Kwasi (2006). “Marbury in Africa: Judicial Review and the Challenge of Constitutionalism in Contemporary Africa”, Tulane Law Review (80:1), 1-84.
- Russell, Peter H., and David M. O'Brien. 2001. Judicial Independence in the Age of Democracy: Critical Perspectives from around the World. Charlottesville.
- Sartori, Giovanni. 1994. Comparative Constitutional Engineering. New York.
- Saunders, Cheryl. 2006. “The Use and Misuse of Comparative Constitutional Law”, Indiana Journal of Global Legal Studies (13:1), 37.
- Scheppele, Kim Lane. 2003. “Aspirational and Aversive Constitutionalism: The case for Studying Cross-Constitutional Influence Through Negative Models”, International Journal of Constitutional Law (1:2), 296.
- Scheppele, Kim Lane. 2003. “Constitutional Negotiations: Political Contexts of Judicial Activism in Post-Soviet Europe”, International Sociology (18:1), 219.
- Scheppele, Kim Lane. 2004. “Constitutional Ethnography”, Law & Society Review (38:3), 389.
- Singh, Mahendra Pal, and P. K. Tripathi. 1989. Comparative Constitutional Law. Lucknow.
- Tully, James. 1995. Strange Multiplicity Constitutionalism in an Age of Diversity. Cambridge.
- Tushnet, Mark. 1999. “The Possibilities of Comparative Constitutional Law”, Yale Law Journal (108:6), 1225.
- Watts, Ronald L. 1996. Comparing Federal Systems in the 1990s. Kingston.
- Weiler, Joseph, and Marlene Wind. 2003. European Constitutionalism Beyond the State. Cambridge.
